Bitter four-year neighbour row runs up £300k over garden brook

Narga purchased a former piggery behind Wright’s home in 2020 for £265,000, then obtained planning permission to convert it into a large house.

The NHS administrator has claimed that the brook is part of her land, stating that she purchased the property - known as Brook Barn - under the assumption that the stream was hers.

However, Wright has maintained that the stream belonged to him, stating that his children grew up paddling in the waterway.

To mark out her territory, Narga tore down an existing fence on her side of the water and in its place erected a new barrier to “secure Brook Barn physically”.

Narga’s actions prompted a “heated discussion” between the neighbour, resulting in a “bitter” court dispute costing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The potter and his wife Laura, a curtain maker, said that the new fence intruded on their own garden.

MORE LIKE THIS:

• Neighbour accused of filming into home next door with family left 'uncomfortable'
• Historic pub slapped with noise bans over 'faint giggles' and 'distant conversations'
• Cowboy plumbers overcharge elderly couple £7,000 for just 4-hour job

Another set of neighbours, Amanda and Tony Clapham, were also infringed by the new barrier, the Wrights claim.

Ultimately, three judges ruled in the Wrights and Clapham’s favour, diminishing Narga’s claim as a “mere paper title” and critiquing the £300,000 costs incurred as a result.

They said that legal action could have been avoided if Narga had spoken to her neighbours before buying the property.

During the course of a trial and two appeals, Lord Justice Peter Jackson, Lord Justice Newey and Lord Justice Nugee agreed that the Wright’s and Clapham’s “peaceful” possession of the brook trump the NHS administrator’s claim.

“The combined legal costs of the trial and two appeals arising from this unfortunate boundary dispute now exceed £300,000. How did the dispute come about? Ms Narga could have consulted the neighbouring landowners before, rather than after, purchasing Brook Barn. Had she done so, this boundary dispute may not have arisen, and much trouble and expense might have been avoided, Lord Justice Peter Jackson said.

Prior to Narga moving in in 2020, the two couples had both used the stream “for decades”, having moved in in 1984 and 1996, respectively.

A judge said they both established “squatter's rights” over the brook, though their use of it was not “obvious” and Naraga superseded their claim once her property was registered.

However, the Court of Appeal overturned that ruling, stating that as the two couple’s had established squatter’s rights on the brook.

“The upshot,” said Judge Nugee, was that Narga “has no registered title to the disputed land”.

The judge added: “She has no other claim to it and there is therefore nothing to displace the possessory title that the Wrights and the Claphams had acquired by 2003, and still have today, to the disputed land.”

Agreeing, Lord Justice Newey said: “It seems to me that the Claphams and Wrights had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession before Brook Barn was first registered.

"Although its title plan appeared to show the disputed land as part of Brook Barn, the plan depicted only general boundaries and did not result in Brook Barn gaining any of the disputed land.

“Ms Narga’s purchase of Brook Barn gave her no more than her vendor had had.”

The amount in costs each side will have to pay will be decided at a later date.